Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1036 OF2017[ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.36446/2016]. BUDH RAM AND ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1037/2017 @ SLP(C) No.36447/2016 JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Leave granted.2. It is the undisputed case of the appellants that they are similarly situated as the appellants covered by the order of this Court dated 17.11.2016 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.11005-11042 of 2016 titled Piyara Singh and Another Etc., v. State of Haryana & Ors. Etc., wherein this Court has taken a view that the 12% increase is to be granted cumulatively from the year 2000 itself and that there should be no cut.3. The same judgment will apply in the case of the appellants as well.4. The appeals are allowed to the above extent and the directions granted in the order referred to above shall hold good for these appeals also.5. However, it is made clear that the appellants ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.9 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL No.1016 OF2017((Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 12166/2011) HARYANA URBAN DEV. AUTHORITY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS ORCHID INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P.LTD. Respondent(s) Date :27. 01/2017 This MATTER was called on for Judgment today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shyam Devan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Chandra Shekhar Suman, Adv. Mr. R.K. Rajwanshi, Adv. Ms. Deepshikha Bharati, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv. Mr. Anil Grover, AAG For Respondent(s) Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Nandini Ram Chandran, Adv. Ms. R. Bhuyan, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar,Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the first appellate court is restored. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we impose costs of Rs.5 lak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1143 OF2010|GANGA RAM SAH & ORS. |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |STATE OF BIHAR |.....RESPONDENT(S) | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.The case of the prosecution, which has been successfully established before the trial court as well as the High Court, is as follows: On 27.06.1983, a fardbayan was given by the informant Yogendra Narayan Sah alleging that three days ago, the cattle of Ram Chandra Sah, accused No.5 herein (sole accused in Criminal Appeal No.285 of 1988 before the High Court) grazed the paddy field of the informant, which incident was brought to the knowledge of the villagers by the informant. It was further alleged that on 27.06.1983, at about 9 am, he showed grazed field to the Panches in the presence of accused No.5 Ram Chandra Sah. The Panches advised them not to get involved in an altercation. It was further alleged that while the Panches were busy inspecting the field, accused N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5170 OF2010|NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL | | |DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |HARKISHAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. |.....RESPONDENT(S) | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.This appeal has a chequered history. Matter pertains to the acquisition of the land of the respondents, which was acquired way back in the year 1990. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') proposing to acquire the land of the respondents, as well as some other persons, was issued on January 05, 1991. It was followed by declaration under Section 6 issued on January 07, 1992. Even award, thereafter, was pronounced on August 17, 1996. The acquisition proceedings were challenged by the respondents by filing writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed by the High Court, and the appeal there against was dismissed by this Court also on July 15, 1998. In this first ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.353 OF2017(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.12581 OF2015 |THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, |.....APPELLANT(S) | |KIADB, MYSORE & ANR. | | |VERSUS | | |ANASUYA BAI (D) BY LRs. & ORS. |.....RESPONDENT(S) | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.The question of law that has been raised in this appeal by the appellants, for consideration by this Court, is: Whether provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, New LA Act), are applicable in the instant case when the land is acquired under the provisions of KIAD Act?. Factual narration that is required to be noted, giving rise to the aforesaid question of law, is stated hereinbelow: Respondents is the owner of land bearing Sy. No.123/1 measuring 4 acres 9 guntas and Sy. No.123/2 measuring 1 acre situated at Anganahalli Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Madhya District, Karna...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A. No.858 OF2017(Arising out of SLP (C) No.21587 OF2013 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..Petitioners VERSUS M. SELVAKUMAR & ANR. .Respondents with C.A. No.859/2017 @ SLP (c) 18420 of 2015 with C.A. No.860/2017 @ SLP (c) 25885 of 2015 JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN J.Leave granted.2. These appeals have been filed challenging the judgments of Madras High Court and Delhi High Court allowing the writ petitions filed by Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes (OBC), claiming that they are entitled to avail 10 attempts instead of 7 attempts in the Civil Services Examination. The challenge is on the ground that since the attempts for Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to General Category have been increased from 4 to 7, w.e.f. 2007 Civil Services Examination, there should be a proportionate increase in attempts to be taken by Physically Handicapped Candidates belonging to the OBC Category.3. C. A. No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4080 OF2014KULDEEP SINGH PATHANIA APPELLANTS (S) VERSUS BIKRAM SINGH JARYAL RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Chapter III of Part VI of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) deals with trial of election petitions. Under Section 86(1) of the Act, the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117. Section 100 of the Act provides for grounds for declaring election to be void. Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act provides that an election of a returned candidate can be declared to be void if the High Court is of the opinion that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void. Section 81 provides for institutional requiremen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6442 OF2011JASBIR KAUR APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SATBIR SINGH RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.The appellant approached this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No.276-M of 2005, whereby the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce.2. Since the appellant was appearing in person, we sought the assistance of Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned senior counsel as Amicus Curiae.3. After hearing the parties and the learned amicus curiae, this Court on 10.08.2016 passed the following order: Both the parties are present in Court today. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant-wife as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-husband. It is very clear that the parties are no more interested in maintaining their relationship. The only question left for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A.No.13 OF2014IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.463 OF2012Common Cause & Ors. ..Petitioners vs. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. In our order dated 14th May, 2015 we had held that it was completely inappropriate for Mr. Ranjit Sinha (then Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation or CBI) to have met persons accused in the coal block allocation cases without the investigating officer being present or without the investigating team being present. We were also of opinion that in view of this, it would be necessary to enquire whether any one or more such meetings that Mr. Sinha had with the accused persons had any impact on the investigations and subsequent chargesheets or closure reports filed by the CBI.2. We had requested assistance from the Central Vigilance Commission in this regard and during the pendency of the proceedings, we had also appointed a Committee headed by Mr. M.L. Shar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.677 OF2016Rishabh Choudhary ..Petitioner versus Union of India & Ors. .Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.862 OF2016Sandeep Kumar & Anr. .Petitioners versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. .Respondents JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.W.P. (C) No.677 OF20161. The question for consideration in this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution concerns the validity of admission granted to the petitioner by respondent No.3 (C.M. Medical College & Hospital - for short the College) to the MBBS course. In our opinion, the admission granted by the College to the petitioner was unjustified and therefore his admission is set aside.2. On 21st December, 2010 a gazette notification was issued by the Medical Council of India amending the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 to the effect, inter alia, that admissions to the MBBS course shall be based solely on marks obtained in the Nati...
Tag this Judgment!